• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Bigfoot follies

Status
Not open for further replies.
William Parcher said:
Jodie, was it you that said that mental evaluations cannot be done remotely? If that is true, are you baiting me into giving an evaluation of sanity and normalcy only to then tell me that that can't be done on the Internet?
Click to expand...

I figure if ABP gets a free pass with this crowd that I, or anyone else, ought to be given the same consideration. I just wondered where we draw the line on just how crazy, crazy really is when we are all sitting up here in front of our computer monitors talking about bigfoot.
 
Jodie said:
I figure if ABP gets a free pass with this crowd that I, or anyone else, ought to be given the same consideration. I just wondered where we draw the line on just how crazy, crazy really is when we are all sitting up here in front of our computer monitors talking about bigfoot.
Click to expand...
Some Bigfooters are probably crazy. I tend to say it is a crazy hobby. They pursue a mythical creature and there is a lot of lying going on. Most of it seems to be pretending and so it's kind of a crazy pastime. Trying to defend Bigfootery and the existence of Bigfoot in front of skeptics is a crazy pursuit too which can be part of the crazy hobby.
 
Jodie said:
Yes, do you think a one time bigfoot sighting would make a person certifiable?
Click to expand...
More like a person doing a crazy thing.

I will say that I think there would be a big divide between a person who thinks in their head that they may have seen a Bigfoot but never does anything about it, never claims that Bigfoot exists, and never tells anyone for the rest of their life as compared to a person who talks and argues about it as if their claimed sighting is some kind of fact.
 
River said:
Under that premise, how can we definitely say that tyrannosaurus rex is extinct Jodie? How can that be any different than saying there is no bigfoot? Please explain.
Click to expand...

Because T-Rex has fossil evidence to support that he did indeed live at one time. We also have genetic evidence that links him to chickens. Nothing new has been found. There is an extreme high probability that T-Rex is extinct unless we find a live one in the Congo or the Amazon at some future date.

You don't have any of that with bigfoot. That means the bigfoot concept as we know it never existed, doesn't exist now, but there is a remote possibility that we could find some evidence of something to explain the phenomena in the future. It doesn't mean that future event would necessarily be the discovery of the stereotyped version of bigfoot.
 
William Parcher said:
More like a person doing a crazy thing.

I will say that I think there would be a big divide between a person who thinks in their head that they may have seen a Bigfoot but never does anything about it, never claims that Bigfoot exists, and never tells anyone for the rest of their life as compared to a person who talks and argues about it as if their claimed sighting is some kind of fact.
Click to expand...

You see, I don't think that's the right way to look at it. People make mistakes. People also have various levels of intelligence, cultural influences, experience with the outdoors, coping mechanisms, and educational levels that might make a difference in how they perceive what they saw. A liar might insist they saw bigfoot for monetary gain. A stubborn person might insist that what they saw was a bigfoot for any of the reasons I listed above, but that doesn't necessarily make them crazy.
 
Jodie said:
Because T-Rex has fossil evidence to support that he did indeed live at one time. We also have genetic evidence that links him to chickens. Nothing new has been found. There is an extreme high probability that T-Rex is extinct unless we find a live one in the Congo or the Amazon at some future date.

You don't have any of that with bigfoot. That means the bigfoot concept as we know it never existed, doesn't exist now, but there is a remote possibility that we could find some evidence of something to explain the phenomena in the future. It doesn't mean that future event would necessarily be the discovery of the stereotyped version of bigfoot.
Click to expand...


Just a couple things in bold type. Extreme high probability? Really? What probability would you put on say, finding T-rex in the Congo or Amazon Jodie?

That is pretty basic science. It is either here or it is not. With bigfoot, would you agree that the possibility is much less likely than a live T-rex colony living today? How can we call one extinct (and footers would agree to this I would hope) and say one exists, but cannot be proven so?

The time for "taking off the gloves" was long ago. Footers have no ground to stand on. Nothing but lies/hoaxes/fabrications and wishful thinking. If you feel otherwise, please prove it.
 
Last edited:
Jodie said:
I beg to differ, I have not ignored anything. I've been saying it over and over for several pages. Lack of evidence can alllow you to draw
Click to expand...
But there is NOT lack of evidence.
I gave you quite a bit of verified scientific evidence that supports a logical and scientific conclusion that a primate larger than a squirrel has not existed on the continental N.Am for 40 million years.

To declare that a 9 foot ape is prowling the N.Am forests has not grounded in science. I has nothing to do with lack of evidence associated with sightings.
You continue to ignore this point by counter-arguing something that I have not argued.

Ignoring scientific evidence is not the same as declaring a lack of evidence.
a conclusion based on probabilities but it really can't provide definitive proof. In bigfoot's case, it is simply an opinion based on a pragmatic approach regarding missing data, data that should be there, if what is described is real.
Click to expand...
You are either missing the point or deliberately dodging the point I am making.

I am not arguing for missing data.

I have supplied scientific data that can be used to come to a logical, scientific and nearly irrefutable conclusion that the likelihood of a primate larger than a squirrel existing on the N.Am continent in the last 40 million is so close to zero as to be impossible.

Not improbable or unlikely, practically impossible.

Please stop arguing about missing data - that is a strawman of your own making and not the point that I have presented.
 
Last edited:
Hey I wanna play. Screech is Gilligan's nearest living relative. Kim Kardashian is a pile of sand's nearest living relative. Apes evolved from apples and thus Steve Jobs is was the greatest ironic ape ever. Man this is easy. I don't even have to learn anything new. :eye-poppi
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom